Upload
others
View
3
Download
0
Embed Size (px)
Citation preview
Alternatives to evacuation during wildland fire: Exploring adaptivecapacity in one Idaho communityTRAVIS B. PAVEGLIO1, MATTHEW S. CARROLL2 AND PAMELA J. JAKES3,*
1College of Forestry and Conservation, University of Montana, 32 Campus Drive, Missoula, MT 59812, USA2Department of Natural Resource Sciences, Washington State University, Johnson Hall 183, Pullman, WA 99164-6410, USA3Northern Research Station, USDA Forest Service, 1992 Folwell Avenue, St Paul, MN 55108, USA
The use of alternatives to evacuation during wildfire events continues to be an intensely debated strategy in the professional andpolicy circles of numerous fire-prone countries. The most recent chapter comes in response to the Black Saturday Fires inAustralia, which has led to policy changes concerning alternatives to evacuation in both Australia and USA. This study exploresthe local context that influenced the development of alternatives to evacuation in one Idaho community through in-depth inter-views with local residents and officials. It acknowledges alternatives as one ‘fire-adaptive behaviour’ of the local community, a keycharacteristic that US fire professionals identify as a means to better manage wildfire. We apply and extend a recently createdadaptive capacity framework for wildfire to uncover specific community characteristics that both led to and reinforce thedevelopment of alternatives to evacuation that are tailored to the local population. Identification of these characteristics serves asone important step towards better local assessment of adaptive capacity for a broad classification of ‘fire-adaptive’ behaviours.We conclude that no one combination of local resources can guarantee the development of alternatives to evacuation. Rather,diverse local context will result in different approaches and applicability of the practice.
Keywords: adaptive capacity; alternatives to evacuation; community; wildfire
1. Introduction
There has been much debate in recent years over
how to best protect human populations and
property at risk from intensifying wildfire
events. Historically, US agencies and land man-
agement professionals had a relatively simple
answer to this question: suppress all fires quickly
to keep them from impacting human settlement
and evacuate populations when that cannot be
accomplished. The latter half of this philosophy
clearly reflected and substantiated the preference
for evacuation that remains central in the US
approach to disasters (Pyne, 2001; Wisner et al.,
2004). Yet the law does not require residents to
evacuate during most hazard events, including
wildfire (Wolshon and Marchive, 2007; Mozum-
der et al., 2008). Thus, private citizens have
always faced a personal decision of whether to
comply with evacuations or remain to ride out
the event. There is a long history of cases
during wildfire events where residents have
chosen the latter (Cohn et al., 2006; Cova et al.,
2009).
More recently, fire professionals and research-
ers from multiple countries have questioned
whether evacuation (or ‘relocation’, as many
now prefer) is always feasible or preferred as a
strategy for protecting human life and property
during wildfire events. Much of this inquiry has
centred on the Wildland–Urban Interface
(WUI), where residential structures intermingle
with wildland vegetation. Related concepts
include the i-Zone, peri-urban landscapes or the
rural–urban interface (Cottrell, 2005; USDA and
research paper
B *Corresponding author. Email: [email protected]
ENVIRONMENTAL HAZARDS 9 (2010) 379–394
doi:10.3763/ehaz.2010.0060 # 2010 Earthscan ISSN: 1747-7891 (print), 1878-0059 (online) www.earthscan.co.uk/journals/ehaz
USDI, 2009). The outgrowth of this thinking has
been the development of various alternatives to
evacuation. Australian authorities adopted a
policy of ‘Stay and Defend or Leave Early’ (here-
after referred to as ‘SDLE’) that supported a resi-
dent’s decision to remain at home during
wildfire events, provided that their home was
adequately prepared to withstand a wildfire
event and that they could actively defend
against the fire (Rhodes and Handmer, 2008).
Likewise, US authorities have considered a
number of formal strategies that would prepare
residents to remain at home or in designated
shelter areas during certain wildfire scenarios.
These include variations on the Australian
alternative, more passive options such as
shelter-in-place (SIP) in homes or specially
designed structures called ‘sheltering points’
(Paveglio et al., 2008; McCaffrey and Rhodes,
2009).
The biophysical conditions necessary for pre-
paring and implementing alternatives to evacua-
tion during a fire event have been relatively well
researched, including appropriate home con-
struction materials and residential vegetation
standards (Cohen, 2008; Gill and Stephens,
2009). In this paper, we respond to numerous
calls for research on the social characteristics
necessary to support alternatives to evacuation
within any community, thereby advancing the
discussion of their importance to fire manage-
ment (Cova et al., 2009; Stephens et al., 2009).
Little empirical research has attempted to
uncover the factors that lead to interest in or suc-
cessful implementation of alternatives to eva-
cuation, including resident responsibility,
awareness and preparedness. The few examples
that do exist suggest that the social and physical
factors supporting alternatives to evacuation
differ among communities and need more
exploration at the local level. It is at this local
level that research on social context, including
community capacity, can provide a better
picture of what is necessary to advance alterna-
tives to evacuation (Steelman, 2008; Paveglio
et al., 2010). The case study of Wilderness
Ranch, Idaho, presented here highlights the
social elements that are necessary to support
alternatives to evacuation as one strategy
that can help achieve the US goal of ‘fire-
adaptive communities’ outlined in the
Quadrennial Fire Review (USDA and USDI, 2009).
The elements are organized using a framework
of the social factors affecting wildland–urban
interface (WUI) community’s adaptive capacity
(Paveglio et al., 2009).
2. Alternatives to evacuation: an evolvingdiscussion
2.1. Defining alternatives to evacuation
Alternatives to evacuation encompass a broad
class of activities that vary in their formality and
practice given different local social (local policies,
resident awareness or ability to reduce fire risk)
and biophysical factors (fuel loadings, aspect
and vegetation). A number of specific alternative
strategies within this category have been dis-
cussed in professional and scholarly literature,
including SDLE, SIP in homes and SIP in commu-
nity sheltering points (Handmer and Tibbits,
2005; Gill and Stephens, 2009).
The primary difference between SDLE and SIP
in homes or sheltering points is the level of resi-
dent involvement during the hazard event. All
require proper vegetation management in the
structural-ignition zone and fire-hardened (or
‘ignition-resistant’) construction, yet SDLE
requires that residents combat the fire prior to
and following the flame front to ensure human
safety and structural protection. SIP is a passive
process in which residents take refuge during
the entire duration of the fire. For the purposes
of this discussion, we will use the terms ‘alterna-
tives to evacuation’ or ‘alternatives’ to describe
the different practices that allow residents to
choose to safely remain in the community
during a wildfire.
Only a handful of US communities have con-
sidered or implemented site-specific alternatives
as a strategy for dealing with human safety
during wildfire. While the alternatives
380 Paveglio, Carroll and Jakes
ENVIRONMENTAL HAZARDS
employed in these communities share common
elements, differences exist in the policies and
procedures designed to prepare the landscape
(buffer zones and vegetation management stan-
dards), structures (building codes) and residents
(outreach materials, presentations and training)
for their implementation (Firewise Commu-
nities, 2009; Rancho Santa Fe Fire Protection
District, 2009).
2.2. Australian alternatives
Despite long-standing traditions of remaining in
homes and other structures during wildfire in
portions of Australia, formal consideration of a
policy addressing alternatives to evacuation is
generally ascribed to the period following the
Ash Wednesday Fire of 1983 (Handmer and
Tibbits, 2005). Research on the Ash Wednesday
Fire and others (Parliament of the Common-
wealth of Australia, 2003) eventually led to the
development of the SDLE policy, also referred
to as the ‘stay or go’ model in Australia (Rhodes
and Handmer, 2008). The SDLE model was
adopted by The Australasian Fire Authorities
Council and the Bushfire Cooperative Research
Centre (Bushfire CRC). Both organizations
developed position statements or policy docu-
ments in support of SDLE and suggested prep-
arations necessary for resident safety (AFAC,
2005; Bushfire CRC, 2006). Evidence suggests
that many Australians in rural areas have fol-
lowed the practice of protecting both themselves
and their property. However, the dynamic
nature of wildfire conditions makes standard rec-
ommendations by professionals concerning
SDLE difficult. Likewise, there is far from a
uniform understanding or implementation of
the policy by residents (Tibbits and Whittaker,
2007). Others have noted that women and
families are more likely to favour evacuation,
with able-bodied men the most common
family members who might stay to defend prop-
erty (Proudley, 2008).
The tone of discussions concerning SDLE in
Australia changed in the wake of the February
2009 Black Saturday Fires in that country,
although support remains for the SDLE policy
among fire agencies. Review and revision of the
SDLE policy was a major focus of the Royal Com-
mission convened following the widely publi-
cized event. Early conclusions by the
commission stated that information central to
the SDLE policy was not detailed enough to
ensure the safety of residents. They rec-
ommended the revision of SDLE outreach
materials, a reinforcement that ‘the safest
option is always to leave early rather than stay
and defend’, and additional professional auth-
ority to advise residents on the ‘defendability of
their homes’ (Teague et al., 2009a).
In the wake of the Black Saturday Fires, home-
owners are advised to ‘Prepare. Act. Survive’, but
they retain the option to stay and defend their
homes (Harrap, 2010). Meanwhile, research by
the Bushfire CRC following the fire event ident-
ified many residents who successfully employed
SDLE during the event (Victorian Bushfires
Research Taskforce, 2009).
Another policy change was the addition of a
fire danger rating beyond ‘extreme’ that reflected
the extraordinary weather and fuel conditions
that fed the Black Saturday Fires, with residents
strongly advised to evacuate on ‘catastrophic’
days regardless of their plans to stay and defend.
The first use of the ‘catastrophic’ or ‘code red’
warning occurred in November 2009, although
there is some indication that certain residents
chose to remain or intend to do so in the future
(Strahan Research, 2010).
More recent recommendations by the Royal
Commission advocated further research on com-
munity refuge areas or private ‘fire bunkers’ as
viable alternatives to evacuation and proposed
initiatives to support the construction of such
shelters in at-risk communities. These con-
clusions were a positive note in an otherwise criti-
cal discussion of alternatives to evacuation by the
commission (Teague et al., 2009a, b).
2.3. US debate over the use of alternatives
The past few years have been marked by increas-
ing consideration and debate over the use of
Alternatives to evacuation 381
ENVIRONMENTAL HAZARDS
alternatives to evacuation in the USA (McCaffrey
and Rhodes, 2009). Among the significant con-
cerns about adoption of alternatives are social
prerequisites (i.e. communal commitment to
uniform fuels reduction, standards or policies
for building and zoning), psychological prepared-
ness of residents and the need for sustained edu-
cational efforts to prepare homeowners
(Paveglio et al., 2008; Stephens et al., 2009). Like-
wise, two significant points of debate among pro-
fessionals and scholars concern the role of
alternatives in a broader strategy for human
safety during wildland fire and their applicability
to specific at-risk populations (isolated commu-
nities, subdivisions, the elderly or the young)
(Cova et al., 2009).
McCaffrey and Rhodes (2009) and Paveglio
et al. (2008) have both discussed the organiz-
ational challenges inherent in changing the eva-
cuation practices of US organizations tasked
with wildfire management. More recent work
has demonstrated that many professionals are
actually supportive of efforts to develop alterna-
tives to evacuation and that those with experi-
ence in both wildland and structure fire events
see the most utility in the practice (Cova et al.,
2009; Paveglio et al., 2010).
Cova et al. (2009) developed decision-action
trees for determining the appropriate strategy
given wildfire conditions and local contexts
(available ingress or egress, proper vegetation
management). According to these authors, adop-
tion of alternatives to evacuation is most pressing
where infrastructure constraints (poor road con-
ditions, traffic) require an extended period of
time to evacuate the local population. Other
authors exploring the applicability of alternatives
in USA note that improvements in the tools used
to predict possible fire impacts or determine the
time needed for mass relocations during fire
events (i.e. ‘trigger points’, fire modelling, rate
of spread models) could eventually provide pro-
fessionals and residents with the means to better
assess the safest strategy during a given fire situ-
ation (Gill and Stephens, 2009; Stephens et al.,
2009). However, they caution that such models
cannot make absolute predictions of fire severity,
nor would they be easily adopted or interpreted
by the residents.
Consideration and implementation of alterna-
tives to evacuation appeared to be on the rise in
USA preceding the Black Saturday Fires of 2009.
However, consideration of alternatives in
Southern California was abandoned shortly after
the Black Saturday Fires (FIRESCOPE, 2009).
Southern California professionals unveiled an
alternative policy of ‘Ready, Set, Go!’ shortly
thereafter. ‘Ready, Set, Go!’ retains a primary
focus on ignition-resistant structures and
reduction of fuels in the home-ignition zone in
an effort to create housing developments that
are safe for firefighters and can survive fires
without the presence of local residents. In this
policy, early evacuation is characterized as ‘the
preferred and safest option for all residents’; shel-
tering strategies are advised only when residents
are trapped by fire (IAFC, 2010). The ‘Ready, Set,
Go!’ policy has received support from the US
Western Fire Chiefs Association (Aleshire, 2009)
and the International Association of Fire Chiefs,
with plans to expand its use across the nation.
2.4. A framework for assessing the abilityto develop alternatives to evacuation
Fire policies have generally treated the WUI as a
homogeneous collection of people and human
systems, with little recognition of the social com-
plexity and variability that affects policy
implementation; meanwhile, a growing body of
research suggests that some communities have a
greater capacity to adapt to environmental dis-
turbance through planning, mitigation actions
or recovery initiatives (Norris et al., 2008; Sturte-
vant and Jakes, 2008). The recent focus on adap-
tive capacity among scholars studying
environmental hazards and climate change
recognizes the differing ability of communities
and the need to better understand local social
context in promoting behaviours aimed at redu-
cing risk. Adaptive capacity is the ability or pre-
conditions of a social system that allows it to
adjust to environmental changes through the
mobilization of resources (Nelson et al., 2007).
382 Paveglio, Carroll and Jakes
ENVIRONMENTAL HAZARDS
A recent study that synthesizes adaptive
capacity and social science literature on wildfire
management provides a conceptual framework
for understanding the social context influencing
a community’s ability to take civic action to
reduce wildfire risk (Paveglio et al., 2009). The
authors define the framework using four
elements: (1) resident knowledge of the local eco-
system and experience with wildfire (place-based
knowledge); (2) access and ability to adapt scien-
tific/technical information to a local context; (3)
demographic (i.e. median income, age, ethnicity)
or structural (i.e. road infrastructure, building
materials, access to resources) characteristics;
and (4) interactions and relationships within
the community that support collective action.
The argument made by Paveglio et al. (2009) is
that the ways in which communities build on
and combine these four elements helps explain
their different approaches towildland fire manage-
ment. Their comparison of two Californian com-
munities’ ability to create community wildfire
protection plans draws parallels to other fire
studies documenting regional and community
differences in WUI residents’ support of fuels man-
agement, implementation of fire protections and
willingness to comply with mandatory evacuation
(Mozumder et al., 2008; Bowker et al., 2009). Simi-
larly, the emerging research on alternatives to eva-
cuation that we reviewed above indicates that
some communities may be more capable of devel-
oping or implementing alternatives than others
based on both social and physical characteristics
(Cova et al., 2009; Paveglio et al., 2010). Our
research seeks to expand an understanding of the
importance of local context, defined by commu-
nity adaptive capacity and the conceptual model
offered by Paveglio et al. (2009), to the implemen-
tation of alternatives to evacuation.
3. Methods
3.1. Site selection and description
Site selection began by contacting national and
regional wildfire professionals and web searches
to identify any US community considering or
implementing alternatives to evacuation. Lexis-
Nexis searches for newspaper coverage of the
topic also helped identify potential study sites.
For the relatively small list of potential
case study communities generated, we contacted
local community leaders and fire professionals to
determine (1) the community’s level of implemen-
tation of alternatives to evacuation, (2) the
amount of local interest and involvement in
the development of alternatives and (3) whether
the study area represented a WUI community.
Wilderness Ranch, Idaho, was chosen as the
study site because it best met the three criteria
described above. With regard to criterion (1), the
localfiredistricthaddistributed information to resi-
dents in support of alternatives to evacuation and
was in the process of developing formal recommen-
dations to advance this planning. We discuss the
conceptionof thosealternatives in thenext section.
Concerning criterion (2), Wilderness Ranch
was one of the first communities recognized by
the Firewise Communities USA Program. Local
volunteers still conduct regular meetings,
organize community fuel reduction efforts and
assess local conditions as specified by Firewise.
Local firefighting capacity in Wilderness Ranch
includes the Wilderness Ranch Fire Protection
District (WRFPD), which is administered by
three elective fire commissioners and supported
by local property taxes, and The Wilderness
Ranch Fire Fighter’s Association, a nonprofit
agency staffed by volunteers and funded by
annual fundraisers, donations or government
grants. The association has a roster of more than
40 volunteer firefighters who regularly train and
respond to fire or other emergency events nearby.
Development and interest in alternatives to eva-
cuationhad occurred locallyamong these commu-
nity members involved in organizations such as
the WRFPD, members of the Wilderness Ranch
Owners Association (WROA) and other residents.
It was also clear during our search that Wilder-
ness Ranch fulfilled the third criterion of a WUI
community. Wilderness Ranch is a collection of
270 homes (995 residents) founded more
than 20 years ago and scattered along 25 miles
of dirt and gravel roads about 24 miles northeast
Alternatives to evacuation 383
ENVIRONMENTAL HAZARDS
of Boise, Idaho. Although close to the state capital
and major urban centre, Wilderness Ranch does
not share the resources and government infra-
structure found in Boise. There are only two
points of ingress and egress for Wilderness
Ranch, and both connect to the two-lane
Highway 21, a designated scenic drive and the
only major road that links Boise and Idaho City.
The local topography is rugged and mountain-
ous, with vegetation on the bordering public
land (Idaho Department of Lands (IDL), USDA
Forest Service (USFS) and Bureau of Land Manage-
ment (BLM)) shifting from shrub-steppe and
grasslands to thick ponderosa pine and mixed
conifer forests as elevation increases.
3.1.1. Alternatives to evacuation in Wilderness
Ranch
Although the concept of alternatives to evacu-
ation has been evolving in Wilderness Ranch,
one element has remained constant: the decision
to evacuate or stay and defend during a wildland
fire is made by the local residents – it is their
choice. Outreach material provided by the
WRFPD and WROA contains elements of
the three approaches described earlier, with the
terms SDLE and SIP used interchangeably in
some material. If residents decide not to evacuate
during a wildfire, outreach material emphasizes
the possible need to actively suppress spot fires
prior to and following the flame front (WRFPD,
2008). While older outreach materials focused
on alternatives as a way to ensure both home
and personal safety, more recent information
has concentrated on life safety:
Some residents in our communities have
the option of remaining in their homes during
a fire . . . The main purpose of stay and defend is
to preserve life safety, not to save houses and
the possessions they hold. . . (WRFPD, 2008, p. 1).
The WRFPD and WROA provide ‘Stay and Defend’,
‘Home Defense’ and ‘Firewise’ checklists outlining
biophysical characteristics that make a property
defensible and actions that residents must take to
be safe if they decide not to evacuate. The
WRFPD informs residents living in areas where
staying in their homes is not advised due to bio-
physical conditions (i.e. high fuels, increased
slope, canyons) or the absence of ignition-resistant
construction (i.e. shake roofs, wood siding) that
they will soon have another choice: ‘refuge
houses’ or sheltering points. Owners of safe, defen-
sible properties will identify their home as a refuge
house and allow other residents to shelter there
rather than evacuate during a wildland fire.
3.2. Data collection
Understanding how social elements influence the
development of alternatives to evacuation
necessitates a qualitative inductive approach.
This is because such research is in its exploratory
stages: few empirical themes or patterns provide
the basis for testable hypotheses (Strauss and
Corbin, 1990; Glaser and Strauss, 1999).
A combination of theoretical and representa-
tive sampling was used to select study partici-
pants. Theoretical sampling is an approach in
which subjects are selected not randomly, but
rather on the basis of their knowledge or experi-
ence in a particular domain (Lindlof and Taylor,
2002). This method was important in our selec-
tion of local leaders (i.e. Wilderness Ranch Fire
District Chief, local Firewise representatives)
and area professionals (i.e. IDL, BLM and USFS
fire managers) who might have specialized
knowledge about wildfire planning or the appli-
cability of alternatives to evacuation in Wilder-
ness Ranch. Representative sampling was used
in the selection of local residents who embodied
the range of perspectives surrounding fire protec-
tions and alternatives to evacuation. In this case,
care was taken to interview residents who live in
different geographic locations in the community
and representativeness was monitored by record-
ing the location of interviewed residents’ homes
on a map of the development. Consistent with
an inductive approach, data collection in both
sampling strategies continued until the authors
in consultation with key informants agreed that
emergent patterns had stabilized and no novel
information would be forthcoming from later
observations (Glaser and Strauss, 1999).
384 Paveglio, Carroll and Jakes
ENVIRONMENTAL HAZARDS
During the summer of 2008, the first author
conducted 50 semi-structured, face-to-face inter-
views with individuals who live in Wilderness
Ranch, are members of the WRFPD or WROA, or
regional agency professionals familiar with pro-
tections in the area. Interviews took place in resi-
dents’ homes, at community gatherings or in
professional offices throughout the area. All inter-
views were recorded and later transcribed.
3.3. Analysis
Data analysis consisted of analytic induction and
thematic analysis. Analytic induction is primarily
concerned with providing data-driven expla-
nations of phenomena (Silverman, 2001). Patterns
identified from initial interview notes are later
refined through continual testing against any
new observations, a process referred toas ‘progress-
ive falsification’ (Strauss and Corbin, 1990).
Thematic analysis serves as a complementary
coding strategy to analytic induction because it
provides a systematic way of supporting or reject-
ing themes based on their reoccurrence in the
data (Boyatzis, 1998; Silverman, 2001). Using
the Atlas Ti v. 5 software for qualitative data, the
first author (1) coded statements using categories
reflective of observed patterns in the data, a
process dubbed the ‘discovery’ stage, (2) ident-
ified any observed anomalies or apparent contra-
dictions in these emergent patterns, (3) presented
these initial themes and examples to co-authors
in order to standardize or reject observations
(inter-coder reliability) emerging from the data,
and (4) selected the most representative quota-
tions of remaining themes through multiple
stages of increasingly restrictive coding.
4. Results
Our results revealed a number of community
characteristics that appear to have prompted or
supported the development of alternatives to eva-
cuation by local residents and local fire pro-
fessionals. We have organized the presentation
of these various characteristics within the
conceptual elements outlined in Paveglio et al.’s
(2009) framework of adaptive capacity to wildfire
risk in an effort to illustrate how our findings both
substantiate and extend their work. While the
adaptive capacity framework recognizes that
many of these social characteristics interact and
could apply to multiple elements, we have made
the effort to situate characteristics under the
most applicable of their four elements.
4.1. Place-based knowledge/experience
4.1.1. Resident awareness, ability and
preparedness
People who were interviewed exhibited a rela-
tively high level of local awareness of wildfire
risk. Residents understand that fire is a regular
occurrence in their local ecosystem and that
they are responsible for reducing wildfire risk.
Awareness of wildfire risk and the choice to live
a more rural way of life were linked to residents’
development of the physical skills necessary to
manage their properties, including brush clearing
and tree felling. Fuel management in the home-
ignition zone was most pronounced among long-
term residents of the area and those who had
experienced previous wildfires in the area. As
one resident said: ‘. . .Like hurricanes in Florida,
its fires up here, and I try to keep the brush cut
back, I’ve been cutting brush back for 20 years
up here. . .’
The residents we spoke with in Wilderness
Ranch were aware of local efforts to promote
alternatives to evacuation and had personal
plans in place for a fire situation. Residents
informed us that they had decided to remain in
their houses or their neighbours’ homes during
a wildfire, and could describe the actions they
have taken (i.e. fuel modifications, ignition-
resistant construction and experience with fire
support) or would take (i.e. putting out spot
fires and evacuating to safer homes/areas in the
ranch). As one resident said:
Absolutely, it would be my preference (to
stay). . .a worst case scenario, about the worst I
can think of would be if somehow a limb went
Alternatives to evacuation 385
ENVIRONMENTAL HAZARDS
through the window. . .I think that’s extraordi-
narily unlikely, I mean this is heavy double-
paned or up here triple-paned glass. . .so my
view is we would be perfectly fine anywhere in
the house and certainly in that root cellar,
you know, where it’s 55 degrees and it’s
surrounded by dirt and then we’d come out
and you know, if we needed to fight a little fire,
we would.
Other residents were aware of the option to
remain, but reported that they would choose
to evacuate early if the option was available to
them. These potential evacuees reported that
local conditions (i.e. vegetation management or
shelter location) or personal abilities (i.e. willing-
ness to accept risk or put out fires) were not suffi-
cient to stay.
4.1.2. Local independence and culture
The local culture in the study area is perhaps best
characterized as emphasizing ‘self-reliance’ or
‘anti-authoritianism’. This culture promotes the
development of solutions residents can carry
out and manage themselves. According to one
resident who is also a commissioner for the
WRFPD: ‘Again it’s a choice: I’m gonna (i.e.
“going to”) stay and defend. I don’t need the gov-
ernment telling me whether I can or can’t do that.
And I think we probably see a lot of that, you
know, within the area.’
This anti-authority culture meant rejecting
predefined approaches to housing development,
fire standards and evacuation mandates in
other parts of the country. As one resident
pointed out:
If you’re from California, you know what it’s
like living in subdivisions where if a corner of
your screen is popped off your window, you’re
getting fined. . ..Here, man you know people
come here for a reason and leave me the hell
alone. . . if I’m gonna change my roof and
there’s a new roof that would be less likely to
cause a fire to the house if embers fell on it,
I’d probably do it, but I’m not gonna put a tile
roof on my house just because that’s what
they’ve deemed.
4.2. Access to scientific/technical knowledgenetworks
4.2.1. Firewise Communities USA
The long-time association of Wilderness Ranch
with the Firewise Communities USA Program
was described by interviewees as a critical contri-
butor to resident ability to reduce wildfire risk,
thus laying the groundwork for alternatives to
evacuation. As one resident articulated:
If we can continue to do the Firewise, I think
more people will have the confidence to
stay. . .if you are gonna try to hold out, you’ve
got to do the job, you’ve got to do the Firewise
to bring the intensity down.
Key individuals in the community regularly
access Firewise information relating to fuel
reduction and ignition-resistant construction
materials, and use this information to educate
their neighbours about reducing wildfire risk. As
one resident said: ‘We have as much risk as any-
where in the state, it’s just, most people here are
a lot more aware. . . (name) does a fantastic job
going around and promoting information about
being Firewise.’
Members of the community conduct regular
Firewise meetings at a communal building in
Wilderness Ranch to discuss personal fire protec-
tions and plan collective fuel-reduction pro-
grammes (see below). Homes that have achieved
Firewise standards or with exceptional fire protec-
tions are often featured in the Wilderness Watch,
an online and paper newsletter developed by
the residents. Periodic articles in the Watch have
also focused on the personal choice to employ
alternatives and how Firewise preparations can
help residents prepare for this possibility.
4.2.2. Professional input on fire protections
Regional fire professionals and emergency man-
agers were uniformly supportive of efforts to
develop alternatives to evacuation. As one BLM
fire specialist explained: ‘There certainly is infor-
mation out there and if there is a point person
(i.e. a leader or organizer) who’s willing to take
the time to learn about it (alternatives), I think
386 Paveglio, Carroll and Jakes
ENVIRONMENTAL HAZARDS
it is a viable option.’ As discussed below, inter-
actions with fire professionals from the USFS,
BLM and IDL were often the basis for increased
awareness of limited ingress/egress options or
the need for additional training for volunteer
firefighters.
The professionals we interviewed acknowl-
edged that Wilderness Ranch residents have
been proactive in reducing their fire risk and con-
sidered many sections of the community ‘defend-
able’ enough to allow consideration of
alternatives. As USFS fire specialist and incident
commander explained:
Quite a few of those homes are, not in timber,
not in dense timber, you know. They got
fairly open space, light fuels, roadways, you
know, if they’ve been landscaping their prop-
erty with you know, at least 30 to 50 feet of
green grass all around it and sprinkler systems
and whatnot, they could actually stay.
When queried about what is needed to more
effectively implement alternatives to evacuation
in Wilderness Ranch, state, county and federal
emergency managers/fire professionals identified
additional information sharing between their
agencies and the WRFD and WROA leaders. This
included a more accurate count of how many
people intended to remain during a fire situation
and where they live, a continued focus on fuel
reduction and further consultation with wildfire
managers or researchers concerning expected
fire intensities.
4.3. Demographic and structural factors
4.3.1. Limited evacuation capacity
Local leaders of WRFPD and WROA recognize
that the road infrastructure in Wilderness Ranch
contributes to the community’s wildfire risk and
decreases the likelihood that an evacuation
could be safe for residents. Residents reported
that this view had been supported by a review
of wildfire risk by experts (including USFS
fuels managers and scientists) and local
resident experience. A number of local firefighters
and community leaders described the
diminished capacity to evacuate as one of the
primary reasons for exploring alternatives to
evacuation:
We gotta try to get 270 homeowners out this
one road when I’m trying to get engines up to
the fire, think about the liability we’ve got by
not having a plan at all and just hoping every-
body gets the hell out of here. . . so we need to
look at alternatives and I recognize that
there’s some risk involved to it, but I just see
it as the only solution to our unique problem
here at Wilderness Ranch.
Local residents understand this diminished eva-
cuation capacity and they cite it as a primary
reason for their interest, consideration or
support of local efforts to develop alternatives.
Many residents described the dangers they
would likely face attempting to evacuate, even
early, given the poor road infrastructure and
likely traffic on Highway 21:
I know enough of the people here that I’m not
sure if we tried to evacuate we could, the roads
are essentially one lane and when people get
crazy, I wouldn’t want to be fighting the
roads. I’d rather take my chances and be here
(home).
4.3.2. Identification of sheltering points
Efforts to create sheltering points emerged early
in the consideration of alternatives to evacuation
at Wilderness Ranch. As a local volunteer firefigh-
ter explained:
There are certain houses that are gonna be
much more defendable than others and so
yeah, I went through the Ranch and found
several that, you know, one in each area that
would work (as a sheltering point).
This option became a stronger focus in the com-
munity after local leaders and residents studied
the variability in vegetation and topography
throughout the ranch (grasses and ponderosa
pine savannah vs. thick forest, relatively flat ter-
races vs. scattered canyon areas) and consulted
with other fire professionals in the area
Alternatives to evacuation 387
ENVIRONMENTAL HAZARDS
(i.e. USFS, IDL, BLM). Residents we interviewed
could locate the nearest ‘safehouse’ and described
the understandings between neighbours about
collectively using the structure as a shelter
during fire events. The WRFD is bringing new
attention to ‘safehouses’ by highlighting the
option in recent publications, re-designating
‘safehouses’ at strategic locations throughout
the ranch and planning meetings with groupings
of residents that might need the option.
4.3.3. Diverse resident backgrounds
There is a great deal of occupational, economic
and social diversity among the residents of Wild-
erness Ranch. This is primarily because of its
proximity to Boise, small towns and large tracts
of public lands. Professions range from highly
skilled and educated business and government
professionals to construction workers and mech-
anics. A number of retirees moved to the area to
be near the mountains while a number of resi-
dents work from home or provide services (inter-
net, trash disposal) to residents in surrounding
areas. This diversity was a very important factor
in the relationships between residents with
regard to fire protections.
4.4. Interactions/relationships among residents
4.4.1. Community interaction to address common
concerns
The diverse skills and abilities of residents in
Wilderness Ranch mean that there are local resi-
dents who can fill different roles in the planning
and implementation of alternatives to evacu-
ation. As one resident pointed out with regard
to the planning or implementation of fire protec-
tions: ‘I think it’s a nice mix up here, you’ve got
people willing to do some hard work and you’ve
got people who are willing to sit down on the
computer and we’ve got enough diversification
where there is a lot of talented people.’
The professional skills residents bring to their
community support the writing of grants for pro-
jects to reduce fire risk and the development of
outreach materials to educate their neighbours.
Longer-term residents have the experience and
ability to carry out fuels reduction on personal
or community property – they are knowledgeable
about wildfire risk and are comfortable using the
tools or operating the machinery necessary to
tackle risk-reduction projects. Other residents
have ties to law enforcement or fire management,
giving them access to networks and other sources
of information, ‘The guy that lives right over here
is a retired sheriff. . .and I talked to him about it
and he said you’d be better off to stay in your
home rather than try and get down.’
Residents of Wilderness Ranch have learned
how to work together to overcome challenges
inherent in living in a mountainous area, includ-
ing isolation as a result of heavy snow or poor
road conditions. This ability to work together is
also a critical factor in the success of many local
organizations, including the WRFPD, the local
Firewise group and the WROA. For instance,
Wilderness Ranch organizes a yearly cleanup/
fuel reduction day each spring, including
drop-off zones for vegetation cleared from prop-
erties. The community has received grants
through state and federal programmes to reduce
fuel loadings on private and common property.
The WROA also sells fire-retardant gel to residents
for added protection during a wildfire.
This ability to work together is often demon-
strated by small groups of residents, as the ranch
is ‘segmented’ into smaller ‘neighbourhoods’ by
topography. These smaller ‘micro-communities’
are useful for organizing the larger community
around sheltering points. Likewise, volunteer
firefighters within the micro-community serve
as a trusted source of information for the neigh-
bourhood. As one resident explained:
Yes, I know every neighbor here compared to
when I lived in the South, or in Simi Valley, I
couldn’t tell you the person that lived right
next to me. . . if anybody gets in trouble or any-
thing like that, it’s not like being in the city
where you get a 5 minute or less response
time, so everybody kind of relies on everybody
up here.
We found that the level of involvement by resi-
dents across the ranch was not uniform, and
388 Paveglio, Carroll and Jakes
ENVIRONMENTAL HAZARDS
that some members of the community were criti-
cal of others’ (often newer residents’) abilities to
deal with wildfire risk. As one resident who has
plans to go to a sheltering point during a wildfire
articulated:
This winter was alarming to me on the amount
of people, the percentage of people that live up
here that cannot take care of themselves so I
think it’s frightening what you’re looking at
in terms of a plan or the prospect of people
stay(ing).
4.4.2. Local firefighting capacity supported by
community volunteerism
Respect for local firefighters and the regular inter-
action among firefighters and members of the
community were significant factors in the disper-
sal of ideas concerning alternatives to evacuation
and resident trust in the opinions of firefighters
who supported the concept. As one resident
said: ‘Just a bunch of guys that were either in
their retirement age or good volunteer firemen
or whatever, but they got great training. . .and
they come to parties and we talk about the stuff
(fire protections).’
Wilderness Ranch has taken a number of steps
to improve its firefighting capacity, including
expansion of the Wilderness Ranch Firefighters
Association, establishment of the WFRD and con-
tinual training for volunteer firefighters who live
throughout the development. Local leaders also
explained that support for this training often
came through partnerships with nearby USFS or
IDL offices and state or federal grants. But a
number of volunteer firefighters and local
leaders described how improvements in firefight-
ing capacity have brought a broader realization of
the risks the community faces and the limits in
firefighter ability to protect property and lives,
both of which lead to the consideration of
alternatives to evacuation.
4.4.3. Mobilization by `local champions'
In addition to local volunteer firefighters, a group
of highly involved and motivated local leaders
emerged to champion the idea of alternatives in
Wilderness Ranch. These individuals included
an organizer of Firewise programmes and a
handyman/community organizer who helped
spearhead fuel reduction projects across the com-
munity. The respect and influence these individ-
uals had on the community were critical in the
promotion and planning for resident use of
alternatives. As one of these local champions
described: ‘As long as we have the “dirty dozen”
that will kind of organize and kind of put the
word out. . .probably 5% of the community can
get the rest of the community to help out, but it
takes that 5% to rally the troops.’
5. Discussion
‘It’s not all about technology. . .sometimes it’s
common sense. I’m sure barricade (fire-
retardant gel) works real well, but you know
what else works well? A 5-gallon bucket of
water. . . .’
5.1. Applying the adaptive capacity framework inalternatives to evacuation
Our research on the social characteristics that
supported the development of alternatives to eva-
cuation among local residents in Wilderness
Ranch, Idaho, is only one case study. However,
the in-depth nature of that study helps develop
an understanding of the ways in which commu-
nities are progressing towards being ‘fire
adapted’ and the identification of locally based
community characteristics that make such adap-
tation possible. We situated our findings within
an adaptive capacity framework designed to
identify the broad social elements that dictate
variable community ability to adapt or act in
the face of wildfire risk (Paveglio et al., 2009).
We found that the four categories identified in
the conceptual framework help highlight some
of the elements critical to the promotion of
alternatives to evacuation and the development
of Wilderness Ranch as a fire-adapted human
community (Figure 1). Perhaps more importantly,
Alternatives to evacuation 389
ENVIRONMENTAL HAZARDS
it can be seen how the factors within each concep-
tual element interact with others, creating a local
context that supports civic action.
Revisiting the four factors of the adaptive
capacity framework, we can discuss how the pres-
ence of specific community characteristics led to
interest and support for alternatives to evacua-
tion among residents in Wilderness Ranch. To
begin with, local leaders indicated that the demo-
graphic and structural characteristics of Wilder-
ness Ranch that helped create support for
alternatives to evacuation included the ranch’s
limited evacuation capacity and other structural
characteristics (fuel loadings, housing con-
struction and location). Other research has
highlighted the importance of structural charac-
teristics in wildfire risk (Cova et al., 2009). Our
study demonstrates how recognition of these
physical factors in Wilderness Ranch spurred the
consideration of alternatives to evacuation.
Meanwhile, the diverse social, economic and pro-
fessional backgrounds of residents in Wilderness
Ranch meant that within the community there
was a wide range of abilities that could be mobi-
lized to reduce fire risk by developing and
disseminating outreach materials, securing
grants and taking appropriate action. The impor-
tance of these characteristics of human capital to
reducing fire risk has been observed in other
studies (Jakes et al., 2007; Steelman, 2008).
However, diversity is not always a plus for collec-
tive action, and may make it difficult for residents
to frame issues, prioritize projects or generally
agree on a course of action.
With regard to place-based knowledge and
experience, our results suggest that many resi-
dents of Wilderness Ranch choose to live
outside an urban setting to be free of regulations
and other limits on what they can and cannot
do, including the freedom to remain in their
homes or nearby shelters during fire events.
They take pride in the skills and abilities they
have developed that allow them to deal with
their own risk. Experience with and knowledge
of the role of fire in the local ecosystem and poten-
tial fire behaviour are linked to residents’ search for
information necessary to adapt to local con-
ditions. Behaviours taken in Wilderness Ranch
that contributed to a fire-adapted human commu-
nity include implementing fuels reduction
FIGURE 1 Adaptive capacity and community characteristics influencing the development of
alternatives to evacuation during wildfire
390 Paveglio, Carroll and Jakes
ENVIRONMENTAL HAZARDS
projects, encouraging ignition-resistant construc-
tion, planning for alternatives to evacuation or
joining the volunteer firefighting effort. Similar
results have been reported by others studying fire
preparedness (see McCaffrey (2006) for a
summary). All these factors are crucial antecedents
in the ability to carry out alternatives to evacua-
tion, should they become necessary.
Local leaders and residents of Wilderness
Ranch have sought out and applied relevant
scientific or technical knowledge in the pursuit
of alternatives to evacuation. The people we inter-
viewed consistently mentioned the importance
of expert consultation and professional input.
For instance, fire officials from the USFS, IDL
and other agencies were instrumental in recog-
nizing the limited evacuation capacity of Wilder-
ness Ranch and providing training to local
volunteer firefighters. On the other hand,
implementation of alternatives to evacuation
may be hindered because community leaders in
Wilderness Ranch have yet to collaborate with
local fire federal and state fire managers (IDL,
USFS, BLM personnel) or provide them with
information about the alternatives the commu-
nity intends to implement (i.e. maps indicating
who intends to stay; sheltering points). This col-
laboration could strengthen planning and
implementation of alternatives, thereby reducing
risk for residents and firefighters.
A number of residents we interviewed noted
how the long-time success of the Firewise Com-
munities USA Program and associated commu-
nity organized efforts have increased the
capability of some residents to implement and
maintain vegetation management and structural
improvements necessary for alternatives to eva-
cuation. In addition to Firewise, other organiz-
ations such as Firesafe Councils, volunteer
firefighting organizations and county emergency
management initiatives also have information
useful for reducing fire risk or links to networks
with information resources.
One of the least tangible or measurable
characteristics linked to successful community
adaptation to wildfire are the interactions and
relationships among local residents and
institutions or groups within the community.
However, the ability of residents to pursue sol-
utions to common problems and help each
other deal with risk is a highly influential force
grounded in a large body of literature (Jakes
et al., 2007; Nelson et al., 2007). In Wilderness
Ranch, familiarity with immediate neighbours
and regular interactions were borne of shared
challenges related to the community’s isolation.
Many of these interactions are informal, but
that makes them no less important in collective
preparation. These interactions helped dissemi-
nate information on the benefits of sheltering
points, in which some residents would use
others’ homes as refuge during a wildfire
situation.
Community organizations such as the WROA,
WRFPD, volunteer fire department and Firewise
chapter also demonstrate more formal networks
that organize individuals to work together, and
highlight the importance of community volun-
teerism. The fact that residents are willing to
donate their time, energy and resources to
improving local capacities for wildfire prepared-
ness and response demonstrates a commitment
to collective action.
Finally, the important role of local champions
in establishing local norms, modelling behaviour
and educating neighbours about wildland fire
management in Wilderness Ranch mirrors other
results (Firewise, 2009; Paveglio et al., 2010), indi-
cating that community interest and support of
alternatives is often borne first by a select few in
a given area. These individuals have helped to
overcome the historical conception of evacuation
as the safest option during fire by researching and
adapting ideas to the local context. Their ability
to command local respect and mobilize action
has been a factor in the adoption of ideas such
as alternatives.
5.1.1. Social diversity and alternatives
to evacuation
The characteristics described above will not be
present in every WUI community at risk from
wildfire, nor will the relative strength of these
characteristics be uniform, even in communities
Alternatives to evacuation 391
ENVIRONMENTAL HAZARDS
with relatively similar demographic attributes.
However, some of the above community charac-
teristics, and others yet to be identified, could
eventually serve as indicators for the extent to
which communities have become or are capable
of being fire adapted. Such advancement would
require consideration of how to measure specific
characteristics and the type of data local, state
or federal agencies could collect to assess the vari-
ance of this ability across diverse WUI
communities.
The point here is that no one set of local
resources is likely to guarantee the development
of alternatives to evacuation or other behaviours
necessary to fire-adapted human communities,
irrespective of whether they are demographic/
structural (i.e. ingress/egress, local wealth),
place based (i.e. local ecological knowledge,
including fire ecology), knowledge based
(i.e. local firefighting training, professional con-
sultation) or predicated upon the interactions
and relationships within the community (ability
to achieve common goals, communal/familial
ties) (Figure 1). Rather, different combinations
of the above-described elements (and others yet
to be defined) in a local context seem highly
likely to influence which fire-adaptive behaviour,
including alternatives to evacuation, is best
suited for the population and social context in
which they find themselves. Where a community
might lack structural or material resources, they
may supplement it with local ability, knowledge
and collective planning. This was the case with
Wilderness Ranch.
The research presented here suggests that the
alternatives to be used in any community may
be different from its neighbour depending on
social and physical characteristics. To that end,
our extension of the adaptive capacity framework
developed by Paveglio et al. (2009) is a starting
point in the exploration and recognition of the
conditions that will drive whether and what
type of alternatives are necessary in a given com-
munity. Such characteristics are part of a larger
understanding that WUI communities are a
diverse collection of social, cultural and political
entities that vary in their capacity to reduce
their wildfire risk and increase their resilience to
various disturbances (fire, climate change and
drought).
Just as the WUI can no longer be considered
one ‘type’ of community, fire professionals
cannot expect that one approach to citizen
safety during a wildfire will work in each situ-
ation. Rather, through the interaction of resi-
dents and emergency managers, communities
can determine what their existing ability to deal
with fire risk is, how they build capacity, and
whether they are best suited to remain or evacu-
ate in various fire situations. This means provid-
ing information on the variety of options
available to residents, developing tools and train-
ing that help them take on this additional respon-
sibility, and (in some ways) stepping back from
the role as ‘expert’ protectors in lieu of a commu-
nity resource.
References
Aleshire, G. L., Jr, 2009. Statement of Support for Ready Set Go
Policy. Western Fire Chiefs Association. www.wfca.
com/Assets/dept_1/PM/pdf/Support%20Ready%20Set
%20Go%202009%20Adopted.pdf.
Australian Fire Authorities Council (AFAC), 2005. Pos-
ition Paper on Bushfires and Community Safety. www.
afac.com.au/afac_positions/bushfires_and_commu
nity_safety.
Bowker, J. M., Hoon Lim, S., Cordell, H. K., Green, G. T.,
Rideout-Hanzak, S. and Johnson, C. Y., 2009. Wild-
land fire, risk, and recovery: results of a national
survey with regional and racial perspectives. Journal
of Forestry, 106(5). 268–276.
Boyatzis, R. E., 1998. Transforming Qualitative Infor-
mation: Thematic Analysis and Code Development.
Sage, Thousand Oaks, CA.
Bushfire CRC, 2006. The Stay and Defend Your Property or
Go Early Policy: The AFAC Position and the Bushfire
CRC’s Current Research. www.bushfirecrc.com/publi-
cations/downloads/bcrcfirenote7staygo.pdf.
Cohen, J. D., 2008. The wildland–urban interface fire
problem. A consequence of the fire exclusion para-
digm. Forest History Today, Fall. 20–26.
Cohn, P. J., Carroll, M. S. and Kumagai, Y., 2006. Evacua-
tion behavior during wildfires: results of three case
studies. Western Journal of Applied Forestry, 21(1).
39–48.
392 Paveglio, Carroll and Jakes
ENVIRONMENTAL HAZARDS
Cottrell, A., 2005. Communities and bushfire hazard in
Australia: more questions than answers. Environ-
mental Hazards, 6. 109–114.
Cova, T. J., Drews, F. A., Siebeneck, L. K. and Musters, A.,
2009. Protective actions in wildfires: evacuate or
shelter-in-place? Natural Hazards Review, November,
10(4). 151–162.
FIRESCOPE, Governor’s Blue Ribbon Task Force, 2009.
CA Fire Service: Prepare, Leave Early, Follow Evacuation
Orders. www.cpf.org/go/cpf/news-and-events/news/
ca-fire-service-prepare-leave-early-follow-evacuation-
orders/.
Firewise Communities/USA and National Fire Protec-
tion Association, Fall 2009. K. Gardner (ed.) Firewise
Communities ‘The How-To Newsletter’. 2–5. www.
firewise.org/usa/files/how_to_guide_full_09.pdf.
Gill, M. A. and Stephens, S. L., 2009. Scientific and
social challenges for the management of fire-prone
wildland–urban interfaces. Environmental Research
Letters, 4. 1–10.
Glaser, B. G. and Strauss, A. L., 1999. The Discovery of
Grounded Theory: Strategies for Qualitative Research.
Aldine de Gruyter, New York.
Handmer, J. and Tibbits, A., 2005. Is staying at home the
safest option during bushfires? Historical evidence
for an Australian approach. Environmental Hazards,
6. 81–91.
Harrap, K., 2010. Prepare. Act. Survive. The Australian
Approach to Revised Community Messaging. IAFC on
Scene: January 2010. www.iafc.org/displayindus-
tryarticle.cfm?articlenbr=41645.
International Association of Fire Chiefs (IAFC), 2010.
RSG Program Guide. www.iafc.org/displaycommon.
cfm?an=1&subarticlenbr=1229.
Jakes, P., Kruger, L., Monroe, M., Nelson, K. and Sturte-
vant, V., 2007. Improving wildfire preparedness:
lessons from communities across the U.S. Human
Ecology Review, 13(2). 188–197.
Lindlof, T. R. and Taylor, B. C., 2002. Qualitative Com-
munication Research Methods (2nd edn). Sage Publi-
cations, Thousand Oaks, CA.
McCaffrey, S. M., 2006. The Public and Wildland Fire
Management: Social Science Findings for Managers.
General Technical Report. NRS-1. U.S. Department
of Agriculture, Forest Service, Northern Research
Station, Newton Square, PA.
McCaffrey, S. M. and Rhodes,A., 2009. Public response to
wildfire: is the Australian ‘stay and defend or leave
early’ approach an option for Wildfire Management
in the United States? Journal of Forestry, 107(1). 9–15.
Mozumder, P., Raheem, N., Talberth, J. and Berrens,
R. P., 2008. Investigating intended evacuation from
wildfires in the wildland–urban interface:
application of a bivariate probit model. Forest Policy
and Economics, 10. 415–423.
Nelson, D. R., Adger, W. N. and Brown, K., 2007. Adap-
tation to environmental change: contributions of a
resilience framework. Annual Review of Environment
and Resources, 32. 395–419.
Norris, F. H., Stevens, S. P., Pfefferbaum, B., Wyche, K. F.
and Pffefferbaum, R. L., 2008. Community resilience
as a metaphor, theory, set of capacities, and strategy
for disaster readiness. American Journal of Community
Psychology, 41. 127–150.
Parliament of the Commonwealth of Australia, 2003. A
Nation Charred: Report on the Inquiry into Bushfires.
Canberra, Australia. www.aph.gov.au/House/com-
mittee/bushfires/inquiry/report/front.pdf.
Paveglio, T., Carroll, M. S. and Jakes, P. J., 2008.
Alternatives to evacuation – protecting public
safety during wildland fire. Journal of Forestry,
106(2). 65–70.
Paveglio, T. B., Carroll, M. S. and Jakes, P. J., 2010. Adop-
tion and perception of shelter-in-place in Califor-
nia’s Rancho Santa Fe Fire District. The International
Journal of Wildland Fire, 19. 1–12.
Paveglio, T. B., Jakes, J., Carroll, M. S. and Williams,
D. R., 2009. Understanding social complexity
within the wildland–urban interface: a new species
of human habitation? Environmental Management
43. 1085–1095.
Proudley, M., 2008. Fire, families and decisions. The
Australian Journal of Emergency Management, 23(1).
37–43.
Pyne, S., 2001. Year of the Fires: The Story of the Great Fires
of 1910. Viking Press, New York.
Rancho Santa Fe Fire Protection District, 2009.
Sheltering-in-Place During Wildfires. www.rsf-fire.org/
education/preparedness/shelter_in_place.asp.
Rhodes, A. and Handmer, J., 2008. ‘Stay or go’ – an
Australian perspective on community response to
the threat of wildfire. Natural Hazards Observer, 32(4).
4–6.
Silverman, D., 2001. Interpreting Qualitative Data:
Methods for Analyzing Talk, Text and Interaction.
Sage, London.
Steelman, T. A., 2008. Addressing the mitigation
paradox at the community level. Wildfire Risk:
Human Perceptions and Management Implications,
W. E. Martin, C. Raish and B. Kent (eds). Resources
for the Future, Washington, DC. 64–80.
Stephens, S. L., Adams, M. A., Handmer, J., Kearns, F. R.,
Leicester, B., Leonard, J. and Moritz, M. A., 2009.
Urban-wildland fires: how California and other
regions of the U.S. can learn from Australia. Environ-
mental Research Letters, 4. 1–5.
Alternatives to evacuation 393
ENVIRONMENTAL HAZARDS
Strahan Research, 2010. Behaviour and Intentions of
Households on Code Red Days: A Report for the
Country Fire Authority. www.cfa.vic.gov.au/publi-
cations/research.htm.
Strauss, A. and Corbin, J., 1990. Basics of Qualitative
Research-Grounded Theory Procedures and Techniques.
Sage, Newbury Park.
Sturtevant, V. and Jakes, P., 2008. Collaborative planning
to reduce risk.WildfireRisk:HumanPerceptionsandMan-
agement Implications, W. E. Martin, C. Raish and B. Kent
(eds). Resources for the Future, Washington, DC.
Teague, B., McLeod, R. and Pascoe, S., 2009a. Interim
Report. 2009 Victorian Bushfires Royal Commission.
www.royalcommission.vic.gov.au/getdoc/208e8b-
cb-3927–41ec-8c23-2cdc86a7cec7/Interim-Report.
Teague, B., McLeod, R. and Pascoe, S., 2009b.
Interim Report 2 – Priorities for Building in
Bushfire Prone Areas. Victorian Bushfires Royal Com-
mission. www.royalcommission.vic.gov.au/getdoc/
0ee9cf62-b75e-4c81-95b1-741b05d9d441/Interim-Re
port-2.
Tibbits, A. and Whittaker, J., 2007. Stay and defend or
leave early: policy problems and experiences during
the 2003 Victorian Bushfires. Environmental
Hazards, 7. 283–290.
USDA and USDI, 2009. Quadrennial Fire Review 2009:
Final Report. www.nifc.gov/QFR/QFR2009Final.pdf.
Victorian Bushfires Research Taskforce, 2009. Victorian
2009 Bushfire Research Response Final Report. Bushfire
CRC. www.bushfirecrc.com/research/taskforce2009.
html.
Wilderness Ranch Fire Protection District (WRFPD),
2008. When Wildfire Approaches. . .Alternatives to
Evacuation. www.wroa.org/document_library/wrfpd_
mailing_2008_aug.pdf.
Wisner, B., Blaikie, P. M., Cannon, T. and Davis, I., 2004.
At Risk: Natural Hazards, People’s Vulnerability and
Disasters (2nd edn). Routledge, New York.
Wolshon, B. and Marchive, III, E., 2007. Emergency plan-
ning in the urban–wildland interface: subdivision-
level analysis of wildfire evacuations. Journal of
Urban Planning and Development, 133(1). 73–81.
394 Paveglio, Carroll and Jakes
ENVIRONMENTAL HAZARDS